By arming Syrian rebels, we’re aiding al-Qaeda

Underlying the chaotic situation throughout the Middle East is the Obama administration’s dysfunctional political strategy of switching sides in the Arab Spring revolutionary wars. The administration has abandoned U.S. allies in the global war on terrorism and formed an alliance with many of the Islamic jihadist groups and militias that Americans have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan — and few have noticed.

In Libya, the U.S. wound up supporting the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was listed as an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group by the United States and the U.N. Security Council. The Arab Spring movement only served to legitimize the Islamic supremacists under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the administration promoted as a moderate political force.

All the propaganda about freedom and democracy was wishful thinking. Rebel atrocities were simply ignored. It would have been unconscionable to imagine the United States aligning itself and supporting groups that decapitated their enemies, but under the Obama administration, that was just what the U.S. did. What happened to American values? Until now, the U.S. never would have made common cause with terrorists, let alone groups that are out to destroy the country. In Libya, the U.S. ignored the atrocities as well as the rebel leadership’s association with al-Qaeda. For the record, there is no difference between the rebels’ ideology and al-Qaeda’s. Both stand for Islamic supremacism governed by draconian Shariah law, which is incompatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. As thanks, Americans got the Benghazi attack.

Compounding the strategic mistakes in Egypt and Libya, which brought the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood to power, the U.S. now plans to provide political and material support to al-Qaeda-allied rebel groups in Syria.

National security advisers who assure Americans that support will go only to rebels supporting freedom and democracy are fooling themselves. U.S. leaders can’t even get to the bottom of the Internal Revenue Service scandal, let alone rebel groups that shift alliances on a daily basis. On either side of the Syrian civil war, there are no “good guys” the U.S. should legitimize by giving support. We must recognize that both sides, Shiite and Sunni alike, profess a jihadist ideology, both are U.S. enemies, and both would destroy America if given the opportunity.

Strategically, we do not have a dog in this fight. Our principal and overriding strategic issue in the Middle East is preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon capability. Every other issue pales in comparison. Therefore, our response to the Syrian civil war should be asymmetrical. Because Iran is deeply involved in the conflict, the U.S. should take advantage of that situation by repositioning forces so that it is ready to launch devastating strikes to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Such a strike would have the effect of bringing “balance” back into Syria’s civil war and would be a long-overdue payback for Iran’s almost 34 years of war against the United States.

With the election of a so-called “pragmatic moderate” as Iran’s president, there will be a loud chorus arguing that the U.S. needs to hold in abeyance any military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure until we see how the new president will address American concerns. It must be understood that President-elect Hasan Rowhani is not a “pragmatic moderate.” He is a hard-core disciple of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and fully supports the apocalyptic views and repressive character of the current regime, including the destruction of Israel and the United States. As Iran’s former principal nuclear negotiator, he stalled any meaningful progress on changing direction in Iran’s drive to achieve a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.